Re: more url-utils?

[joakim]

Ted Zlatanov <address@hidden> writes:

> On Thu, 19 May 2011 08:53:22 -0300 Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> wrote: 
>
>>> OK.  But if the status is nil we couldn't get any data so there are no
>>> URL properties.  So we can have just one callback parameter "url-info"
>>> which is nil if the request failed and an alist if it worked.
>
> SM> I think that a boolean status is not sufficient.  E.g. in case of
> SM> failure, we want to have some information about why (e.g. an error
> SM> message).
>
> ..but we don't want to throw an error.  Hrm.  How about "url-info" is
> three possible types:
>
> 1) nil = failed, no information available (should happen only if there's
> no handler for the URL's protocol)
>
> 2) atom (string or symbol) = failed, information is the string or the
> symbol's properties
>
> 3) alist = success

This seems ok from my user-viewpoint. OTOH I wouldnt mind handling
protocol errors with exceptions. Its what one does in many other
languages anyway.

BTW thanks everyone for driving this forward from my initial inadequate
proposal!

>
> Ted
>

-- 
Joakim Verona